Critiquing Diego Costa's Swansea display: POL goes head-to-head
Diego Costa is a controversial figure, isn’t he? The Chelsea striker has fans and critics in equal measure. Not even a two-goal display could get them on the same page.
The Pride Of London Slack channel is a fun place to be. (Want to find out for yourself? Write for us!) A slow Tuesday afternoon saw staff writers Scott Brant and Andre Carlisle go back on forth about Diego Costa’s performance during Chelsea’s draw with Swansea City.
After some interesting points were raised, I decided that this was a debate worth sharing. Here they are critiquing Costa’s display as POL goes head-to-head.
Scott: Last night I watched the Swansea match again. And I cannot get past how well Diego Costa played. The striker was dominant. Unstoppable. Yes, he missed that effort which he would finish 9/10 times, but he was easily Chelsea’s man of the match.
Andre: For both of us: we see what we want to see I guess. Not only did he miss a two yard chance at an open goal, he…
He probably didn’t play as bad as I’ve said, but he absolutely didn’t “dominate”.
More from The Pride of London
Scott: But he look more motivated than any other player on the pitch. He clearly wanted it, and was clearly going for it. It’s unfair to say when he was challenged by Lukasz Kabianski that it was an easy chance missed. There were two Swansea players coming at him from behind Fabianski. Furthermore, Eden Hazard was one on one with the keeper two seconds before and f*cked it up. This left Costa a tough angle.
Costa also suffered 7 fouls, the most of any PL player this season in one match. If Costa wasn’t the best player on the pitch then who was? He scored two goals and didn’t react to being kicked or wound up. He was booked, but for a mistimed tackle instead of stupidity. I feel you hold him to an unfair standard or expectation.
He also came out of the box on one occasion and played the ball out wide for it to end up back at his feet. He then sidefooted it into the corner of the goal.
Andre: Here’s the thing, that tackle wasn’t mistimed, it was vengeance. He saw Willian get tackled and ran up behind the Swansea player (never once was he level with him or have a clear sight at the ball). Rounding the keeper shouldn’t be hard, he decided to put it in the referee’s hands. That backfired.
MORE CHELSEA: Tammy Abraham exposes the benefits of Chelsea’s loan army
Scott: The fact is that he wouldn’t have needed to round the keeper had Hazard taken the chance. The criticism should be directed towards the Belgian in this case.
Andre: Costa’s fouls suffered will never be an excuse for me. He brings the lot of it on himself. Until he learns how to control himself, every defender on earth knows that their best chance at stopping him is to frustrate him. It’s his fault he experiences a disproportionate amount of fouls. It’s the easiest way to not have to defend him. He gives an easy out, you telling’ me you wouldn’t take it?
Scott: It’s Costa’s fault he gets fouled? I am sorry that’s insane. The fact they don’t want defend him means he’s doing his job. If everyone wanted to defend him he would be Torres.
SWANSEA, WALES – SEPTEMBER 11: Diego Costa of Chelsea celebrates his second goal which he scored with a bicycle kick during the Premier League match between Swansea City and Chelsea at The Liberty Stadium on September 11, 2016 in Swansea, Wales. (photo by Athena Pictures/Getty Images)
Andre: It means he makes their job easier.
Scott: I feel he made Swansea defenders’ jobs very difficult last match. He ran at them, wound them up. They tried to do the same and he didn’t react. Nets two goals, our only two goals. The positives far outweigh the negatives.
In my eyes, not saying he is perfect, but he is well worth the price. And he is starting over Bats and Abraham or whomever for a reason. I don’t know. Maybe you’re right. Maybe I only see the good and you only see the bad. You said his job is to score goals. He did. Also it’s his job not to react. He didn’t.
Andre: My argument regarding this match was that his job is to score goals and the time in-between his two goals he placed other things ahead of that, throwing off his focus. Evidence: not being in the box for crosses, missing a 2yd chance, not putting the ball by the keeper and instead hoping for a foul/sending off to “even the score”.
Yes, when he played football he was great. When that became secondary (at best), we suffered for it. If he dominated all match, and with all of those chances, then how in the world was the match ever a draw? Something has to give.
At this point I’ll cut them off. I think they’re still going anyway. Now it’s over to you. What did you think of his performance? Whose side are you taking? Let us know in the comments below!